Topic: advantages of not wearing armour in HARP/ML?

[kazapp]

Hello,

Combat in HARP doesn't have separate crit tables depending on what armour the target wears, like in old MERP (or perhaps was it RM?).

While this is good for keeping things fast and simple, it did allow one feature I liked: while an unarmoured target would take more Hits than an armoured one for the exact same blow, he would perhaps not be as critically injured. Especially for light and medium criticals.

I interpreted those tables to mean that "you get much worse bruising by not wearing armour, and severe criticals will kill you easily, but you will be able to slightly dodge the worst of several medium criticals."

Or, reversed, "armour saves you from a lot of superficial pain, and might even stand between you and a gory death, but you are slower, so you cannot escape normal criticals as easily."

Now, the "Damage Adjustment by Armor" rule (Martial Law, page 62) is the closest equivalent to these slew of crit tables in HARP as I see it.

But there armor is unconditionally and unequivocably better. Heavier armor is simply better than lighter armor.

I know some agile fighters might compensate a lack of armour by having a superior Quickness, but my question is this:

Do you know of any (official or fan-made) alternative rule to DAbA where this MERP feature is retained?

Armour in HARP is already such a lifesaver I am hesitating to introduce the DAbA rule. I fear it will only make wearing platemail even more given and mandatory than it already is. I don't want to add a rule telling the players how they must gear themselves out. If the DAbA rule would hand out freebies to both heavy mail and no armour then I would feel better using it... In other words, I like how it spices up the critical effects, but I would wish for a somewhat "armor neutral" variant!

Or should I expect to have to make it myself? 

[Right Wing Wacko]

With 4 different combat systems (including the core rules) already in existence for HARP,...

I expect you would have to make it yourself...

Have you checked out HARPers Bazaar 11?

[GMLovlie]

Was what I was going to say, the Harpers Bazaar 11, it is similar to MERP attack tables (in that its less dmg for armoured characters and more for unarmoured, although its harder to hit unarmoured characters), and enables you to also use RM critical tables, if you so wish.

[kazapp]

Thanks for your replies. I have indeed made an attempt at transmogrifying the original Martial Law DAbA rule into something that accounts for these ideas, and that recalibrates the rule to fit my campaign ideas.

You should of course retain the original one if you prefer that, or if your campaign is closer to the default assumptions of HARP than mine is.

DAMAGE ADJUSTMENT by ARMOR

No Armor:
First; you can ignore any critical hit that give you 10H or less (whatever its other effects) altogether.
Then;
a. Any concussion damage (i.e. 11H or more) is increased by +10.
b. Any stun damage (i.e. 11H 1S or more) is increased by +2.
c. Any bleeding damage (i.e. 11H 1B or more) is increased by +2.

Soft Leather:
First; you can ignore any critical hit that give you 5H or less (whatever its other effects) altogether.
Then;
a. Any concussion damage (i.e. 6H or more) is increased by +5.
b. Any stun damage (i.e. 6H 1S or more) is increased by +1.
c. Any bleeding damage (i.e. 6H 1B or more) is increased by +1.

Rigid Leather:
Foes wearing this type of armor recieve the damage on the critical tables exactly as written.

Chain Mail:
a. Any stun damage (i.e. 1S or more) is decreased by 1 (to a minimum of 1).
b. Any bleeding damage (i.e. 1B or more) decreased by 1 (to a minimum of zero).
c. Any maneuver penalty of -10M or less is halved.

Plate & Chain:
a. Any stun damage (i.e. 1S or more) is decreased by 2 (to a minimum of 1).
b. Any bleeding damage (i.e. 1B or more) decreased by 2 (to a minimum of zero).
c. Any maneuver penalty of -20M or less is halved.

Plate Mail:
a. Any stun damage (i.e. 1S or more) is decreased by 3 (to a minimum of 1).
b. Any bleeding damage (i.e. 1B or more) decreased by 3 (to a minimum of zero).
c. Any maneuver penalty of -30M or less is halved.


Regarding the Bazaar, I understand it to contain exactly those tables I am grateful to HARP for not including in the first place. What I want is a small set of easily appliable modifications, not turning the simple "OB - DB + d100" calculation into a slew of multicolumned tables.  Sorry

I might add to explain myself that I am planning a campaign in which access to heavy armor is restricted or non-existent. The main reason for this thread is therefore that I didn't like how the original ML rule would make unarmoured combat strictly deadlier.

Now that I set my eyes on redesigning the DAbA rule I changed several things as my perception of the original rule is that it changes combat too much, and the huge benefits given to Plate Mail pretty much guarantees everybody expecting trouble dons that armor type. It makes a good job of showing why you need to fear the Knight in Plate, but if your campaign has a different focus than punishing characters for not donning heavy armor, it simply is too much, in my opinion.

I have therefore made the following changes for this alternate DAbA rule:
1) death criticals remain unaffected. In campaigns where lifekeeping/ressurrection magic/herbs isn't easily available, it's not worth bothering about tweaking this.
2) maneuver modifications have been toned down greatly. Not getting huge penalties here would otherwise keep Plate the only reasonable option. Besides, if you get MM penalties, you're pretty much done for anyway if unarmed (as your Quickness bonus dries up). Getting another penalty on top of that doesn't make much game design sense (to me).
3) ignoring Stun entirely is too powerful in my opinion, so I've set a minimum reduction on any armor



Any analysis/comments/discussion welcome!   

I'm especially interested in balancing issues and potential tweaks and pitfalls to make/avoid.

[Fidoric]

With those systems, wearing armors seems the best way to engage a fight. The heavier the armor, the better. Is it so unrealistic ? We can find many examples in mundane world that combatants have always sought out the best armor types, or should I say the heavier. This has only stopped when the firearms became powerful enough to punch  hole through any thickness of metal armor.
In a fantastic environment, where firearms are not necessarily around, the metal armor have long days before them.
Wearing a plate armor is certainly the best way to receive a sword attack (if you really have to). The rigid plates, fixations plus the padding will absorb more of the attack energy that a mere chainmail.
Heavier armor types are not only heavier, they are also more advanced in technological terms. It should not be a surprise that they are better to wear. They are an evolution in warfare, guided by centuries of battle.
Real drawbacks of armor are encumbrance and exhaustion.
Encumbrance is well simulated with moving penalties (and try to cross a river or jump from a flaming boat in plate armor).
I think the second point is not taken into account in Harp. Basically you can run as long in plate armor as lightly clothed... I remember rather extensive rules in RMSS regarding that point but no Harp equivalent.
This could be a way to impede heavy tanks in Harp, but I'm not sure how to do it without adding complexity to the game.
Is someone around having a rule on that point ?

[Right Wing Wacko]

In Martial Law the DAbA rule uses Rigid Leather(IIRC) as the "base" protection, and modifications to the criticals of the "lighter" armors are "worse" and modifications to criticals of the heavier armors are "better". This seems realistic enough for me and seems to work fine... and don't forget that an unarmored character gets 2x Quickness to DB with no minus due to armor... which helps to not get hit at all!

I find the combat system to work fine the way it is...

[jurasketu]

Armor. Smarmor.

Boost Quickness spell gives you DB PLUS the Initiative - even Jim the Sloth can get a +20 DB and +10 Initiative. Then with Steel Skin or Mage Armor - you get another nice bonus of +30 DB. So you get +50 DB and always have the Initiative, no maneuver penalties, no spell casting penalties, etc.

Armor is funny stuff though. Chain is almost useless against arrows - which is why soldiers would wear "quilted armor" over the chain and even plate. Quilted armor deflects the arrows very effectively despite being useless against melee weapons. While armor is darned heavy, its "live weight" and so a strong man can troop around for surprising long periods. But I think Base HARP fails to limit the allowed movement pace for armor and initiative like it does for encumbrance. So I use common sense, and for movement pace limits and Initiative penalties, I add the armor weight to all other carried weight to get the pace limits and Initiative penalty. Otherwise, I play the maneuver penalties by the book.

In combat, a warrior can "parry" glancing blows with the armor and receive no harm. An unarmored warrior will be leaking precious fluids from the same "glancing" blow. So, it makes a real difference. Thin plate is perfectly effective for melee combat. Thick plate for heavy cavalry was needed to protect against arrows. But the longbow and reflex bows destroyed this advantage since they could penetrate both shields and armor. In reality, most armies had stopped using heavy plate armor and returned to lighter plate with quilted covers even before firearms became prevalent. I think trying to make specific adjustments to the criticals for armor types beyond the defensive bonus already applied probably exceeds the level of detail inherent in the combat system. The HARP criticals SEEM finely detailed - but that's really just for "color" rather than an attempt at pure realism and the GM should "adjust" the color as needed to make them "work" in a particular circumstance. Hit location helps a little - but don't get carried away if you ask me.

The biggest problem with FULL plate armor is that while wearing such stuff its impossible to do basic human tasks like eating, sleeping, pooping, climbing a ladder, getting on a horse (without assistance), carrying a field pack in addition to all the weight from the armor. So typically, an adventurer simply can't be wearing the stuff all the time and so would only wear some pieces unless battle is certain. Plus, they need a horse to carry supplies.

BTW, in most of my adventures as a player and GM, we always have used horses and even wagons to carry supplies and us around when appropriate.

The other disadvantage is cost. Which in a RPG setting tends to be less relevant since PCs tend to have greater resources. The rich warriors have fitted plate armor, the finest swords, highly trained and armored warhorses, and lackeys to carry spare weapons, supplies, cook dinner, push the warrior onto the horse, etc. Its good to be rich in such an environment.

So, I don't think its unreasonable in High Adventure Gaming for PCs to wear partial plate most of the time while awake and complete plate when battle is certain.

[Fidoric]

I find both the system and those answers fine. Beside, I think every GM can easily impose 'social' limitations on heavy armors. Some types of armor should be limited to some social classes and even those of the right class should not wear them all the time. The same is also true with weapons. Trying to use social skills to gain access in a castle while wearing full battle plate and heavy weaponry should be considered an offense in most settings.
Commons sense is the best way to limit the heavier types of armor as jurasketu stated.
Another difficulty is the time involved in the making of a fitted suit of plate armor. It both requires time and and fairly skilled smith. It then requires materials and much money. By regulating this in a campaign, heavy armors can easily be controlled. In a setting where a rich person owns 20 silvers pieces, rare would be those able to afford a 200 sp plate armor. Most people wanting to wear heavy armors would rely on chains, while those in need of any armor would buy some kind of leather.
Not wearing armor is also definitively an advantage in spell casting but I don't think the original questions was meant for spellcasters.

[Ramoran]

The simple fact is that if you're going to get up close and personal with someone using a sword, you're just not going to be able to simply "dodge" a well-timed and well-placed strike.  You'll either have to block it or let your armor take it because blocking requires moving only one limb/weapon while dodging requires moving all or most of your body.  If you plan to do melee combat with someone, you're going to want bigger, heavier armor, because at that range being able to move a lot isn't all that helpful.  The importance of movement grows as distance grows.  If you're running around in a field dodging arrows and firing them back, or if you're fighthing with spears, tridents, etc., then you have enough space where being able to spot an attack and move in time to dodge it becomes a realistic option.  Those kinds of fighters would want to avoid armor because they have to be quick to dodge attacks.